How many weeks for Mackay?

[Munga]

Whether we like it or not, this game and many other sports around the world are changing, parts of the sports are being sacrificed for the increasing duty of care and the health and wellbeing of players today and in the future.

I've been back and forth with my opinion on this current incident. Originally, I thought it was an awesome hard contest. Then I saw how far back Mackay came from and he should've had a duty of care to a blindsided Clark, but it was still an awesome play from both.

Today, I'm not thinking of Clark, I'm not thinking of Mackay, I'm just thinking of the incident. The players involved could've been anyone. I wouldn't be suspending Mackay, up until today that was a footballing accident. What should be done today is drawing a line in the sand. From now onwards you must protect the head. We know the AFL are trying to do that, but they really aren't there yet.

Mackay/future players can run in ballistically to a contest, that's great. But we have to get to a point where this player realises that they have all the information in front of them, the greater field of view and awareness of the situation, and Clark/future victim does not and is a sitting duck about to get blindsided. Mackay can deal with the contest however he likes, but he needs to control his own actions as to not injure a head. From today, the ball is secondary to the head, that's all you need to remember.

The players need to be educated about duty of care regarding the head. Yes, the game will be softer, it's already gone that way over the last 15 years and I prefer watching matches from the 80s or 90s compared to today... but for the long term health of our players, head injuries need to be avoided as much as possible, this is where sport is going. How Mackay should've handled this will be sorted out in time by coaches and players, they always adapt around these things and the constant rule changes pretty quickly.

I heard some nuffy of the radio today saying it was Clark's fault for putting his head in unprotected... FFS!!! There was no one in front of him, he put his head over the ball like most would... too many others in the comp deliberately turn their own head into a crowd to draw a free, that sh*ts me off and shouldn't be paid.

While I'm here... What also needs to be stamped out is paying frees to ducking cheats. Bending over when already in possession of the ball to initiate high contact. Raising an arm when tackled to slip it high, which has been a blight on the game since J.Selwood entered the AFL (if they stopped paying this kind of free kick early days then most people would only think highly of him, but for most people he'll always be stained with that). Dropping lower at the last second just to get a free. Tackling someone and ending up on their back just because the player dived forward. STOP PAYING THEM!!! Know which player initiates the potential free and act accordingly!!! It's a bloody eyesore!!!

Back on topic. Let Mackay off, educate the players on better duty of care... If anyone should be getting a week off it should be Tex, and I love the guy! Wilkie courageously going back only having eyes on the ball. Tex never even glanced at the ball, in fact he never takes his eyes of Wilkie's head! He just makes a bee-line to his target and delivers a couple of forearms to Wilkie's head. As intentional as you will ever see. The AFL said that it wasn't intentional. Have the AFL actually looked up the word "intentional" in the dictionary?? Is the AFL protecting the head or protecting Tex? Zero duty of care. A non-footballing incident that doesn't belong in the game. Here's a graphic representation of the word "intentional":

 

[Mr Magic]

Whether we like it or not, this game and many other sports around the world are changing, parts of the sports are being sacrificed for the increasing duty of care and the health and wellbeing of players today and in the future.

I've been back and forth with my opinion on this current incident. Originally, I thought it was an awesome hard contest. Then I saw how far back Mackay came from and he should've had a duty of care to a blindsided Clark, but it was still an awesome play from both.

Today, I'm not thinking of Clark, I'm not thinking of Mackay, I'm just thinking of the incident. The players involved could've been anyone. I wouldn't be suspending Mackay, up until today that was a footballing accident. What should be done today is drawing a line in the sand. From now onwards you must protect the head. We know the AFL are trying to do that, but they really aren't there yet.

Mackay/future players can run in ballistically to a contest, that's great. But we have to get to a point where this player realises that they have all the information in front of them, the greater field of view and awareness of the situation, and Clark/future victim does not and is a sitting duck about to get blindsided. Mackay can deal with the contest however he likes, but he needs to control his own actions as to not injure a head. From today, the ball is secondary to the head, that's all you need to remember.

The players need to be educated about duty of care regarding the head. Yes, the game will be softer, it's already gone that way over the last 15 years and I prefer watching matches from the 80s or 90s compared to today... but for the long term health of our players, head injuries need to be avoided as much as possible, this is where sport is going. How Mackay should've handled this will be sorted out in time by coaches and players, they always adapt around these things and the constant rule changes pretty quickly.

I heard some nuffy of the radio today saying it was Clark's fault for putting his head in unprotected... FFS!!! There was no one in front of him, he put his head over the ball like most would... too many others in the comp deliberately turn their own head into a crowd to draw a free, that sh*ts me off and shouldn't be paid.

While I'm here... What also needs to be stamped out is paying frees to ducking cheats. Bending over when already in possession of the ball to initiate high contact. Raising an arm when tackled to slip it high, which has been a blight on the game since J.Selwood entered the AFL (if they stopped paying this kind of free kick early days then most people would only think highly of him, but for most people he'll always be stained with that). Dropping lower at the last second just to get a free. Tackling someone and ending up on their back just because the player dived forward. STOP PAYING THEM!!! Know which player initiates the potential free and act accordingly!!! It's a bloody eyesore!!!

Back on topic. Let Mackay off, educate the players on better duty of care... If anyone should be getting a week off it should be Tex, and I love the guy! Wilkie courageously going back only having eyes on the ball. Tex never even glanced at the ball, in fact he never takes his eyes of Wilkie's head! He just makes a bee-line to his target and delivers a couple of forearms to Wilkie's head. As intentional as you will ever see. The AFL said that it wasn't intentional. Have the AFL actually looked up the word "intentional" in the dictionary?? Is the AFL protecting the head or protecting Tex? Zero duty of care. A non-footballing incident that doesn't belong in the game. Here's a graphic representation of the word "intentional":

You know what gets Tex off despite hitting him in the scone deliberately, the lack of an injury. If he gets concussed I suspect he is out for weeks. I do not condone what Tex has done and he is culpable but I think the result in terms of no real injury is what might be an argument why he is let off

You know I am thinking about this Mackay Clark incident. This is my take on what really happened in general trying to get into Mackay's head. The ball came over Clark's head and was going almost towards Mackay. Mackay was not too experienced in these type of situations usually playing on the wing. Apart from a need to compete he is probably aware of peer pressure to take on the contest. Clark and the ball is almost coming towards him with the fall of the ball and he sees the challenge as it presents, he over compensates and rushes towards Clark and partially misjudges the ball in relation to him and Clark. As he gets closer, instead of adjusting and possibly tackling or impeding Clark making a disposal, he decides to follow through and brace or bump for contact and fly the flag a little and in his emotion and lack of composure lets himself forget about any duty of care to Clark, apart from misfiring in terms of decision precision, as he also focuses on protecting himself in reaction as he would not be in these situations too often. A more confident inside player in this scenario could adjust and try and tackle/bump decelerating even after a unaware Clark gets the ball and still effectively impeding Clark but I am aware its easy to say in hindsight. I still think Mackay is in trouble and I think a lot of bumps/braces can still happen but this is an example of what not to do and the injury caused is a testamony to that fact where protecting the head is paramount but more-so avoiding head trauma incidents is absolutely key and the message the AFL would want to convey. Then again looking at the wide shot, it was highly improbable Mackay was ever going to win the ball and he took off after the ball hit the ground. Notice 25 of the crows was going to get involved in the contest but baulked and decelerated when Mackay was coming the other way wit a lot of force. Mackay should have took a note of 25's play as an example when looking at preventing the injury to Clark in the approach and force of his impact. The other thing is Berry I think it was was right next to Clark so he did not need to hit Clark at that force to imped a disposal from Clark, there were clearly other options. When the ball kicked up off the ground and I think Berry was coming around Clark from the side Mackay could have decelerated and even adjust his motion to a tackle or stop Clark disposing the ball as it was clear then, if not before, about two to three metres out from the collision, Mackay was not going to reach the ball to effect a possession. Actually it was more than two to three metres, more like four to five so Mackay should have slowed up a little like number 25 and not run through Clark like he did who did not see him and was distracted by Berry at his side.

I think Mackay will get a couple of weeks, at a minimum, and I do not think the fabric of the game will be affected too much except for those that want outs for their own stupid decisions on the field at times will hate the refinement because it cramps their style a little.

Clark is out for 6-8 weeks, jaw fractured in more than one place, how can Mackay not get weeks?? It would be preposterous if he didn't

In regards to Walker v Mackay players will be taking into account the possible head trauma results of their actions on opponents even more-so as a result which I think is what the AFL wants

 

[sobrave]

There's 35 other players on the ground. Your duty of care to those players doesn't disappear because the ball is in dispute. For example: you can't get the ball if getting it means you obliterate another player, breaking his jaw with your shoulder.

Rubbish. So the players are meant to sit back and go "hmm gee, I could probably get the ball, but I might hurt someone on the other team, so I'll just hang back".

That would get any player dropped immediately

 

[sobrave]

Whether we like it or not, this game and many other sports around the world are changing, parts of the sports are being sacrificed for the increasing duty of care and the health and wellbeing of players today and in the future.

I've been back and forth with my opinion on this current incident. Originally, I thought it was an awesome hard contest. Then I saw how far back Mackay came from and he should've had a duty of care to a blindsided Clark, but it was still an awesome play from both.

Today, I'm not thinking of Clark, I'm not thinking of Mackay, I'm just thinking of the incident. The players involved could've been anyone. I wouldn't be suspending Mackay, up until today that was a footballing accident. What should be done today is drawing a line in the sand. From now onwards you must protect the head. We know the AFL are trying to do that, but they really aren't there yet.

Mackay/future players can run in ballistically to a contest, that's great. But we have to get to a point where this player realises that they have all the information in front of them, the greater field of view and awareness of the situation, and Clark/future victim does not and is a sitting duck about to get blindsided. Mackay can deal with the contest however he likes, but he needs to control his own actions as to not injure a head. From today, the ball is secondary to the head, that's all you need to remember.

The players need to be educated about duty of care regarding the head. Yes, the game will be softer, it's already gone that way over the last 15 years and I prefer watching matches from the 80s or 90s compared to today... but for the long term health of our players, head injuries need to be avoided as much as possible, this is where sport is going. How Mackay should've handled this will be sorted out in time by coaches and players, they always adapt around these things and the constant rule changes pretty quickly.

I heard some nuffy of the radio today saying it was Clark's fault for putting his head in unprotected... FFS!!! There was no one in front of him, he put his head over the ball like most would... too many others in the comp deliberately turn their own head into a crowd to draw a free, that sh*ts me off and shouldn't be paid.

While I'm here... What also needs to be stamped out is paying frees to ducking cheats. Bending over when already in possession of the ball to initiate high contact. Raising an arm when tackled to slip it high, which has been a blight on the game since J.Selwood entered the AFL (if they stopped paying this kind of free kick early days then most people would only think highly of him, but for most people he'll always be stained with that). Dropping lower at the last second just to get a free. Tackling someone and ending up on their back just because the player dived forward. STOP PAYING THEM!!! Know which player initiates the potential free and act accordingly!!! It's a bloody eyesore!!!

Back on topic. Let Mackay off, educate the players on better duty of care... If anyone should be getting a week off it should be Tex, and I love the guy! Wilkie courageously going back only having eyes on the ball. Tex never even glanced at the ball, in fact he never takes his eyes of Wilkie's head! He just makes a bee-line to his target and delivers a couple of forearms to Wilkie's head. As intentional as you will ever see. The AFL said that it wasn't intentional. Have the AFL actually looked up the word "intentional" in the dictionary?? Is the AFL protecting the head or protecting Tex? Zero duty of care. A non-footballing incident that doesn't belong in the game. Here's a graphic representation of the word "intentional":

Lmao how did ted avoid weeks for that.
Lynch or Hawkins doing it would get 1 or 2

 

[CrowInFiji]

Considering the lawyer who is taking the AFL on in a class action surrounding concussion says Mackay should get zero weeks it's pretty clear the issue isn't about stopping collisions altogether, it's how they are handled off the field before the player is allowed to return.

 

[Farm Boy]

To give him weeks would be to say - he went for the ball and accidentally clipped a bloke. There is zero intent to injure. The only argument would be to say - he entered a contest knowing he could injure, yet proceeded forth. It’s a stretch. Not that the AFL gives 2 rats about a precedent but it would be a terrible one, and it wouldn’t hold up to future scrutiny. To give McKay weeks is to pretty much admit you do not have a game left. I said this a long long (years) time ago. The AFL will eventually have to write up a clear rule book on how players are to enter a contest, and when they do, everyone will realize we have no game left, we are heading towards touch footy.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mofra]

Robbo has been campaigning all week for him to get weeks.

They seem to be peddling the emotional 'it's killing people!' argument.

Robbo kills more braincells on his weekday benders than MacKay took from Clark.

 

[Ambrosia]

I don’t understand how you can suspend him under the current rules. If they want to change the rules and write in some duty of care stuff then maybe in the future this is a suspendible action but surely that shouldn’t impact McKay

 

[Astro35]

You will have to assess the speed size and force of your opponent and match it exactly to make it fair for everyone. In future all players will also be required to be the same weight and height to provide a fair contest so nobody gets hurt

Happend to nic Nat so its not new

 

[El_Scorcho]

Rubbish. So the players are meant to sit back and go "hmm gee, I could probably get the ball, but I might hurt someone on the other team, so I'll just hang back".

That would get any player dropped immediately

This binary choice argument is so dumb. There is a wide range of things a player can do in that situation that aren't shirk the contest entirely, or obliterate Clark's face.

Players make these choices in every single contest at every single game. They don't go in at maximum force if they think they'll hurt someone or give away a free, so they do something else. Tackle. Corral. Bump legally. Dive for the ball. Corral so Berry can make the tackle and take possession of the spill. These are all normal parts of the game that every player does every week, and the vast majority of them aren't dropped for being soft. It's not "hard" to poleaxe a player with his head over the ball.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Happend to nic Nat so its not new

Lycett as well, in the suspension he's just coming back from.

 

[SellarStardom]

By giving Mackay a ban you set a precedent for any incident involving two players reaching with their hands to take control of the ball and one coming off injured equals suspension. If Clark has his body positioned slightly differently and clipped Mackay then he would be banned. If two players were in a pack on the ground and both went in to get the ball and one player cops a knock in the process then it's a ban.

It's a bad precedent because both players in the Mavkay incident are not trying to rough the other up, they are both contesting the ball.

It's incidents like the Tex one where he is clearly just going in to rough the other player up where there should be a ban. Tex should have 2 weeks because its a dangerous act

 

[tiger_tough]

This is the footage that will get him off. Clearly Not going in to bump, hands out for the ball. Allowed to brace for impact at the last moment.

Isn't that exactly what Plowman did?

 

[sprockets]

If Mackay was undisputedly going only for the ball (like Clark), with his head down (like Clark) and looking directly at it (like Clark) it'd just be a 'footy incident', but he was doing none of those things. He was watching Clark as he approached and stayed relatively high. Was it a late decision to do that? Probably, but it was still a decision that caused forceful contact to Clark's face.

 

[Romeoh1]

Robbo kills more braincells on his weekday benders than MacKay took from Clark.

Maybe- but the jaw is fractured in 3 places and he has nerve damage so did come at some cost.

 

[FyfeToAdelaide]

This is a post describing how and why the action was careless. He took a risk based on a miscalculation, the risk didn't pay off, his shoulder made contact with an opponent's face and broke his jaw in 3 places.

Nobody is saying Mackay intended to hurt anybody. He's about the furthest thing from a dirty player in the league. The forceful contact to the head was unintentional, but the direct result of Mackay's decisions.



Kerr was going slower, fully maintained control, actually got to the ball first, didn't hit the guy high and didn't injure anyone. Nowhere near comparable.

Was also a direct result of Clark's decision to contest the ball. Was a direct result of the guy who kicked the ball to the contest.. really it's all his fault he should of seen where the ball he kicked would land and that Mackay would have to run fast towards it and may end up injuring someone.. suspend the guy who kicked it guys case closed.

 

[Bearded Clam]

I disagree. Players give away frees for high contact because they run into a player with his head over the ball in every game. This one was just especially forceful and resulted in an injury.



This is fair. I'll say their messaging has been consistent about the need to protect the head, but that certainly hasn't been consistently applied by the tribunal.

I’m completely and utterly torn here..

your arguement is so full of holes and, at points, totally and utterly ludicrous..

but I hope you are right and Mookay gets suspended for 4 or more weeks!..

 

[Mr Magic]

By giving Mackay a ban you set a precedent for any incident involving two players reaching with their hands to take control of the ball and one coming off injured equals suspension. If Clark has his body positioned slightly differently and clipped Mackay then he would be banned. If two players were in a pack on the ground and both went in to get the ball and one player cops a knock in the process then it's a ban.

It's a bad precedent because both players in the Mavkay incident are not trying to rough the other up, they are both contesting the ball.

It's incidents like the Tex one where he is clearly just going in to rough the other player up where there should be a ban. Tex should have 2 weeks because its a dangerous act

That is a ludicrous assessment. How many times do you see a player entering a contest with that run up and speed creating such force?? Hardly ever I would suspect.

Mackay should get weeks and the fabric of the game is hardly altered.

It worries me many cannot distinguish between incidents and they seem to claim he reaches for the ball in the last shot as some type of panacea which is mutually exclusive from the action in totality as a complex action from quite some distance involving a number of steps literally creating significant force which results/causes the injury.

 

[FyfeToAdelaide]

You know what gets Tex off despite hitting him in the scone deliberately, the lack of an injury. If he gets concussed I suspect he is out for weeks. I do not condone what Tex has done and he is culpable but I think the result in terms of no real injury is what might be an argument why he is let off

You know I am thinking about this Mackay Clark incident. This is my take on what really happened in general trying to get into Mackay's head. The ball came over Clark's head and was going almost towards Mackay. Mackay was not too experienced in these type of situations usually playing on the wing. Apart from a need to compete he is probably aware of peer pressure to take on the contest. Clark and the ball is almost coming towards him with the fall of the ball and he sees the challenge as it presents, he over compensates and rushes towards Clark and partially misjudges the ball in relation to him and Clark. As he gets closer, instead of adjusting and possibly tackling or impeding Clark making a disposal, he decides to follow through and brace or bump for contact and fly the flag a little and in his emotion and lack of composure lets himself forget about any duty of care to Clark, apart from misfiring in terms of decision precision, as he also focuses on protecting himself in reaction as he would not be in these situations too often. A more confident inside player in this scenario could adjust and try and tackle/bump decelerating even after a unaware Clark gets the ball and still effectively impeding Clark but I am aware its easy to say in hindsight. I still think Mackay is in trouble and I think a lot of bumps/braces can still happen but this is an example of what not to do and the injury caused is a testamony to that fact where protecting the head is paramount but more-so avoiding head trauma incidents is absolutely key and the message the AFL would want to convey. Then again looking at the wide shot, it was highly improbable Mackay was ever going to win the ball and he took off after the ball hit the ground. Notice 25 of the crows was going to get involved in the contest but baulked and decelerated when Mackay was coming the other way wit a lot of force. Mackay should have took a note of 25's play as an example when looking at preventing the injury to Clark in the approach and force of his impact. The other thing is Berry I think it was was right next to Clark so he did not need to hit Clark at that force to imped a disposal from Clark, there were clearly other options. When the ball kicked up off the ground and I think Berry was coming around Clark from the side Mackay could have decelerated and even adjust his motion to a tackle or stop Clark disposing the ball as it was clear then, if not before, about two to three metres out from the collision, Mackay was not going to reach the ball to effect a possession. Actually it was more than two to three metres, more like four to five so Mackay should have slowed up a little like number 25 and not run through Clark like he did who did not see him and was distracted by Berry at his side.

I think Mackay will get a couple of weeks, at a minimum, and I do not think the fabric of the game will be affected too much except for those that want outs for their own stupid decisions on the field at times will hate the refinement because it cramps their style a little.

Clark is out for 6-8 weeks, jaw fractured in more than one place, how can Mackay not get weeks?? It would be preposterous if he didn't

In regards to Walker v Mackay players will be taking into account the possible head trauma results of their actions on opponents even more-so as a result which I think is what the AFL wants

If you were watching the game it was more likely that ball would be fumbled out of Clark's hands than cleanly collected.

Also you're acting like Berry had no chance to get the ball in Mackays mind when Berry would of been just as close to the ball as clark when Mackay made the decision to go for it. Just seems like your trying to get your opinion into Mackay missed at the time not actually what the vision shows.

 

[Matera92]

That is a ludicrous assessment. How many times do you see a player entering a contest with that run up and speed creating such force?? Hardly ever I would suspect.

Literally a week ago.

 

[MickG88]

"The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way" specifically infers that not every way of contesting the ball is reasonable.

If contesting the ball gave you immunity from being cited for a high bump, that clause would just say "The Player was contesting the ball."

You will see that Mackay turns his body to brace for contact hence now not contesting the ball but bumping the player.
The argument will always be could he have tackled Hunter instead of bumping and the answer is YES.
When you choose to a) Turn your body and bump a player and b) jump in the bumping motion then the argument of being in a contested situation goes out the window.

 

[MickG88]

I think everyone forgets that sure Mackay reached for the ball but then turned and jumped into Hunter Clark, Can't justify the "contesting the ball" argument.
Next time a guy decides to bump another, all he has to do is put his hands out to pretended to be going for the ball and it makes it legal.

Plus, Why don't you put a player for the team you support into Clarks position and see how you opinion changes dramatically.

 

[Mr Magic]

To give him weeks would be to say - he went for the ball and accidentally clipped a bloke. There is zero intent to injure. The only argument would be to say - he entered a contest knowing he could injure, yet proceeded forth. It’s a stretch. Not that the AFL gives 2 rats about a precedent but it would be a terrible one, and it wouldn’t hold up to future scrutiny. To give McKay weeks is to pretty much admit you do not have a game left. I said this a long long (years) time ago. The AFL will eventually have to write up a clear rule book on how players are to enter a contest, and when they do, everyone will realize we have no game left, we are heading towards touch footy.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think the AFL can make this easy.


David King referred to Mackay as charging into the contest. I believe this is an accurate description.

So the AFL can say if you charge into a contest and impact another player resulting in them getting multiple weeks out and head trauma you will get multiple weeks. This can be law. The fact Clark did not see him coming makes it worse regarding the options Mackay took and the lack of duty of care he showed towards his opponents physical health.

 

[Mr Magic]

Literally a week ago.

Thankyou, now we have a incident that we can compare. Are people prepared to compare and contrast the two????


Those worrying about the fabric of the game can we compare and contrast these two clashes.

I can see a ruling where Mackay gets multiple weeks but not so in the Saad/Shepherd incident.

Before we start would you like to mount your argument?

Now for starters lets talk about the injuries that were in both clashes and compare and contrast. Can we do that. Clark is out for 6-8 weeks with multiple fractures. Mackay instigated the force and moreover generated the bulk of the force and lets assume is out for weeks. Now compare this to the Saad/Shepherd case, can we do that?

 

[Alesana]

I think the AFL can make this easy.


David King referred to Mackay as charging into the contest. I believe this is an accurate description.

So the AFL can say if you charge into a contest and impact another player resulting in them getting multiple weeks out and head trauma you will get multiple weeks. This can be law. The fact Clark did not see him coming makes it worse regarding the options Mackay took and the lack of duty of care he showed towards his opponents physical health.

You are clearly factoring your view on this with emotion. Facts don't care about your feelings. You can go for the ball as hard as you want as long as you are going for the ball like Mackay was. If he did a Goodes and went in with his knee then it's a different story.